pepin1234

Какова версия головки самонаведения для нынешнего Р-27ЭТ? в этом симуляторе? ГСН А3-10, ТГС 36t ?

It is Wip. I just would like see the same map area with different scales to compare. The quality will be improved upon release though.

that's great. Specially if we can draw on it. I am curious how look both scales. thanks for that great info research :thumbup:

I realized today that I can not choose a Su-33 on the new Kuznetsov model. Okay no problem. So how can I have the new Kuznetson on my missions without buying the entire Supercarrier module? I flies Su-33. Any plan for that issue? any crews on board? Perhaps a Kalibr frigate for the map of Syria? Kilo Submarine with Kalibr for Syria map? improved Ka-27 AI helicopter? plans on the roadmap for a whole Supercarrier or Superwhatever module version for Su-33? that actually exists?

today I was shoot down in multiplayer by a Gazelle Helicopter. I don't know if they get radio AWACS call. This Gazelle have a good RWR that help them a lot to spot incoming fighters. If ED want to make later an improved Mi-24 version that's ok. I will pay the difference in price. When that gonna happen then...? . This is my guess. leaving The Mi-24 as a Afghanistan version is also ok for me. The tricky question is what the other module got. They start with improved versions. As Heatblur did with F-14B. All I see in Roadmap for third parties is advanced stuff, even Eurofighter Typhon :music_whistling: We keep stuck with SPO-10 and more and more crappies :D The other question is: there are more old school stuff out there for new incoming modules? no much or nothing

good job!

Can we change to a zoomed map with different scale on the flight. what scales size support the map box?

I see your two pic examples are in front cockpit. I am curious How will be implemented this GPS. Probably we gonna need some speak interaction. interesting stuff.

Это значит, наш Р-27ЭТ работают так же, как и Р-73? Значит, мануфактурщик говорит о другой ракете? реализует модернизированный метод пропорционального наведения с захватом цели на подвеске под носителем

Not the case for R-27ET. The missile know the position of that locked-on target because already have the homing head pointing to that target, this information is received from onboard sensors at that launch moment, just missing the IR signature because the distance and target aspect/AF etc. Ones the manufacturer claim for a proportional navigation feature that PN mean a pre-calculated trajectory do exist “on the suspension under the carrier” (see manufacturer info) That mean this missile got an interception flight with that homing head on search for the IR signature on his way on this pre calculated flight. Could be possible they wanted to add new features for a new incoming module not confirmed yet. As they never did a solid confirmation for that. We can assume they will leave R-27ET without PN.

Basically, in DCS doesn’t exist the option to do the Russian tactic of IR/SARH. Because they wanted make R-27ET guidance same as R-73. Wrong. If you wait until IR homing head get IR signature first , that is a suicide move to get closer until 10-15km... sound like a joke for a BVR missile. Is obvious they are interpreting the “proportional navigation method” as dumb as possible. First, when been in range doing override, after missiles leave rail make a 5sec straight flight to nowhere. Really...? Why...? No need for extra increase the angular turn for the first turn. If you make an impartial and deep analysis of this action in real combat you will see this as a devil and nonsense simulation. This missile already leave the rail with the homing head pointing the target position so why DCS want a limited 5sec to waste time on rocket energy, after that, missile turn on pursuit to a static floating position on the air. Really dumb. A progressive range computing equation on range finder for a T-72 Tank from 70s is smarter than what DCS simulate for R-27ET. This DCS homing head gimbal equation for a moving air target is a nonsense.

I will not argue about range because manufacturer already described R-27T with about 5-10km less range than R-27R. But what we got now is in my personal opinion is unprofessional. See my track and pictures of my last track for more information. The uselessness of R-27ET launched with R-27ER is devastating

Don’t miss the part: with Lock-on on the suspension under the carrier. With lock-on with aircraft sensors missile get the information to leave the rail using proportional navigation method. Such doesn’t exist in DCS to make possible a successful launch in pair with the R-27T and radar guided version like Su-27 do IRL. In DCS is a waste of time do this tactic as my last track show. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

This is the manufacturer information provided for R-73: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/raketa_r-73e.html There is absolutely not a single mention of proportional navigation for that description. Why...? Because is a logic understanding this is a short range missile for a close combat so homing head will get IR signal. They even not mentioned lock-on or PN. Because this missile is autonomous from the very first moment leave the rail. Surprisingly the same method of guidance is what we get Currently for R-27T for computing LA. Why...? The Russian fighters take off the combination of R-27R and R-27T in a regular rate to face whatever show up there for longer range and R-73 only for closer combat. So as manufacturer related proportional navigation “on the suspension carrier for a missile tactically launch from longer range in par with R-27R, Then for DCS understanding simulation for this missile is not launched possible in par for a longer range target. There is not enough IR signal at long range so how come suddenly DCS not implement the claimed by manufacturer description “proportional navigation” I have posted the track that show how useless is in DCS use R-27T in par with R-27R. R-27T using two extra turns killing the missile energy. The difference is huge. The waste of energy is terrible.

There is an official statement for the guidance method or proportional navigation calculation. The statement is already there. You are an user of DCS so how come you denied what a manufacturer described as official. The distance and angular calculation is made by sensors on board aircraft as radar and IRST. Manufacturer described very well the proportional navigation method is made on the suspension under the carrier. That mean this missile leave the rail with a pre calculated trajectory toward a moving air target, such is not happening in DCS. The missiles is basically useless and you are providing zero evidence other than take the meaning of a concept in a broad way on your personal interest not providing a real simulation to a longer range IR missile with extra proportional navigation as manufacturer described. Is not that I am inventing False information, it is that the information is there and you want to change the concept for R-27T for some reason. See: The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

We are not trolling. We have presented official statement from manufactures with proof of a track and pictures showing a non sense guidance with 5sec straight flight for first stage wasting energy for an additional turn. If we show this evidence of official Russian manufacturer source and you all not agreed to an official statement. You also participated been in the thread to debate this weird 5sec and two extra turns in this thread been censored by an Admin without a single evidence that proof the contrary over the official statement. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4455149#post4455149 Those two turns have any sense in an air to air missiles computing interception for a moving target. You all want R-27T behave like an short range R-73 missiles. Manufacturer representative have information about proportional navigation implementation in this longer range missile and you all keep contradicting the official statement. You are not presenting evidences to proof that those two nonsense turns have something to do with the manufacturer statements. Basically, those no sense two turns are killing the performance of R-27T The first stage with 5sec with missile in straight flight trajectory without guidance spend rocket time and increase the curve to after that go for a static position even when that missile was made to face moving air targets in longer range than R-73. The way is implemented this two stage of flight toward nowhere have any relation with a proportional navigation method on lock-on. The lock-on is made by aircraft sensors and the proportional navigation method have been ignored. The 5sec limit straight flight have no reason to be there, neither the turn to a static point after missile left rail. When the missile left the rail after 5sec look for pursuit an specific static point contrary to the enemy Flight trajectory. This is not called proportional navigation method, and with the missile on the air the statement on lock-on with missile on the carrier is ignored. So basically DCS is ignoring the Interception calculation by aircraft sensors. the official manufacturer statement said when missile is on the carrier on lock-on a proportional navigation method is part of this specific R-27T missile. See: The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html You are assuming the proportional navigation method is accomplished only after the homing head got an IR signal. That’s wrong. The word lock-on is related to aircraft sensors as radar or IRST, those will send the proportional navigation calculation to the missile. You don’t want to accept this and all you want put your personal opinion on top the manufacturer statement.

I am really disappointed. Nobody here have the right to contradict the official information of a weapon manufacturer. All I see here is personal opinion without evidences. So the improvement here are based on a group supported by management in this forum...? What we got here? I show an official statement: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html User’s judged that official statement. And who support the users opinion? The name of the thread have been change without a single proof by regular Users. All of them mostly players and western support in the forum. Then we should get in the simulator what a specific geographic users support on top of official manufacturer statements that this group play against? This is deep. Really deep and disrespectful and unprofessional.

You are not manufactured source. You don’t have a single post in this thread for support a user question you only post all the weaknesses of Russian weapons and so on. So what worth your opinion that doesn’t help Russian pilots in the community. I am quoting manufacturer. You? Telling manufacturer is wrong and your opinion about how must be implemented all you go against in the simulator. Your action is trolling all the help we can do for Russian pilots community. They should know what is wrong and how they must do to fix in combats issues about real implementation missed.

As you are not ED team and all you post is in opposition against Russian. Tell me... do you really want to know? If yes then good for you...

This answer is key. That’s why he ask that. Because they want all keep the same until now and ignore manufacturer description :thumbup:

Manufacturer tell on Lock-on the missile go PN. Of course I trust manufacturer, not people have nothing to do with Russian hardware.

Guys S-200 system was shown in one of the teaser videos for Syria Map. Is coming with that map

Не могли бы вы, пожалуйста, проверить первую 5-секундную стадию полета. Ракета идет прямо в течение 5 секунд без наведения. Спасибо. Приятного вам уик-энда.

This 5 sec straight flight without missile reaction are really questionable. 5sec straight for after that look for a static position, something stand on the air.

Are you telling manufacturer is wrong and you ask for more proof? Do you want to set a personal standard and rules for Stuff implementation in Russian weapons?